Couple that ran off with $32m

[smoulder]

I don't see the logic of paying for something you don't see...if you don't see it to buy it, don't buy.

That's how online shopping works too - it's based on trust. Or naivete.

Right, but I guess this was a little different since many of them were “loyal” customers who knew them personally.

Hence "trust"

[x9200]

I don't see the logic of paying for something you don't see...if you don't see it to buy it, don't buy.

That's how online shopping works too - it's based on trust. Or naivete.

It's based on risk assessment. Trust has hardly anything to do with it.

[Lisafuller]

That's how online shopping works too - it's based on trust. Or naivete.

Right, but I guess this was a little different since many of them were “loyal” customers who knew them personally.

Hence "trust"

Fair enough. I would argue that it’s a little more nuanced than you’re putting across though.

[Lisafuller]

I don't see the logic of paying for something you don't see...if you don't see it to buy it, don't buy.

That's how online shopping works too - it's based on trust. Or naivete.

It's based on risk assessment. Trust has hardly anything to do with it.

Can they not be synonymous though? You assess the risk, find the perceived risk to be acceptable and therefore you trust.

[x9200]

That's how online shopping works too - it's based on trust. Or naivete.

It's based on risk assessment. Trust has hardly anything to do with it.

Can they not be synonymous though? You assess the risk, find the perceived risk to be acceptable and therefore you trust.

This is based on my personal approach. If I decide to purchase something I am either accepting the risk of losing my money (low value case) or I am sure I will not lose it (higher value, third party to secure). There is no really any trust involved. Trust would mean I rely on the seller's good intentions/conduct while I am actually not. I would simply not buy even moderately expensive goods if there was no protection so it roughly boils down to these two cases only. And profiling the seller usually is more than enough to avoid any troubles for the low value purchases.

[Lisafuller]

It's based on risk assessment. Trust has hardly anything to do with it.

Can they not be synonymous though? You assess the risk, find the perceived risk to be acceptable and therefore you trust.

This is based on my personal approach. If I decide to purchase something I am either accepting the risk of losing my money (low value case) or I am sure I will not lose it (higher value, third party to secure). There is no really any trust involved. Trust would mean I rely on the seller's good intentions/conduct while I am actually not. I would simply not buy even moderately expensive goods if there was no protection so it roughly boils down to these two cases only. And profiling the seller usually is more than enough to avoid any troubles for the low value purchases.

Got it, and yes that does make quite a bit of sense.